tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5275657281509261156.post7277797580224212616..comments2024-07-15T15:21:10.104-07:00Comments on Faculty of Language: I before E: Getting SnowedNorberthttp://www.blogger.com/profile/15701059232144474269noreply@blogger.comBlogger2125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5275657281509261156.post-91067099445444679012013-01-03T13:17:24.505-08:002013-01-03T13:17:24.505-08:00I don't think (11) is true, for all the usual ...I don't think (11) is true, for all the usual Austin-Strawson-Chomsky (late Wittgenstein) reasons. Though I'm happy to say, in most contexts, that snow is white. <br /><br />It's often assumed that (11) is true if and only if snow is white. Given this assumption, then we're pretty close to the conclusion that (11) is true. And given the assumption that (11) is true, we're pretty close to the conclusion that (11) is true if and only if snow is white. But I think *both* assumptions have to go. <br /><br />Given the difficulty of specifying the alleged truth condition, except by disquotation, I'm surprised that any truth conditionalists offered (21) are a parade case. But I think we're supposed to accept (21) because it follows from the relevant instance of schema-T--even though we know that endless many Human Language instances of schema-T are not true. Anyway, in the post, I was more worried about inferences from the (alleged) truth of the T-sentence to the truth of (11). If someone starts by assuming that (11)--and endlessly many other declaratives are true--then I think it's hard not to buy into truth-conditional semantics. But that's another story.<br /><br />Paul Pietroskihttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05322474821069378817noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5275657281509261156.post-49890099066689429122013-01-02T23:26:56.643-08:002013-01-02T23:26:56.643-08:00I am not quite sure what you are getting at: so le...I am not quite sure what you are getting at: so let me play the student here and put forward the obvious argument that your (1) is true, and you can tell me which step is wrong.<br /><br />Is (11) true ?<br /><br />(11) Snow is white.<br /><br />If you accept that then you accept that (12) is true.<br /><br />(21) 'Snow is white' is true.<br /><br />So if you accept that 11 and 21 are true then you should accept that 22 is true.<br /><br />(22) 'Snow is white' is true and snow is white.<br /><br />And if you think that 22 is true, then since 22 implies 1 you should accept that 1 is true.<br /><br />So I don't buy into truth-conditional semantics for natural language in general, but I do think that 1 is true, though it clearly isn't necessarily true.<br />Alex Clarkhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04634767958690153584noreply@blogger.com